Free association.

Freedom of the individual.

/r/Libertarian is for both philosophical and political libertarians of all kinds including, but not limited to the various "types" listed below, and is not associated with the Libertarian Party. This is a community to discuss free markets and free societies with free minds. As such, we truly believe in spontaneous order and don't formally regulate content (as encouraged by reddiquette). A few general guidelines will help everyone:

Please don't downvote comments. Especially because you disagree with a comment. No one should be shut out of a conversation because you disagree with them. In this subreddit: One is zero, zero is negative. No one should be below zero unless it's pharma spam or something.

Participate and submit content Please take some time to submit things that foster discussion on libertarian topics. This is not meant to discourage image macros, which are nothing more than glorified self posts, and are allowed in /r/libertarian. Read through those links if you want, but don't message us about it.

Report off topic pharma/revenue spam only, not trolling, or content or comments you disagree with.

Don't like the content? DON'T REPORT IT OR MESSAGE US ABOUT IT ... since we aren't going to tag it, remove it or ban anyone. Go to the new queue and vote on the submissions there if the content bothers you.

When I was a freshmen in college they gave the orientation about alcohol, drugs, and sex and they were trying to scare you. They told us the only way to absolutely protect yourself from rape accusations was to get a signed and notarized consent form and to get a written reaffirmation of consent every five minutes during sex.

This could be solved by a smartphone app with fingerprint and voice recording of both party's consensual sexual agreement prior to any activity begins. Of course this could be linked to social security accounts feeding directly to NSA or Homeland Security departments, you know, for compliance.

I can't help but to say a lot more of those women are overweight and have hard time already finding men who want to have sex with them.

I knew I would get downvoted, I am sorry for being so insensitive at talking about the facts.

attempted to explain the many forces in our society that keep men fearful of allowing themselves to be attracted or to admit that they enjoy larger women: "In this highly technological and complicated world, most men are feeling incompetent and scared. And women are paying the price. Amidst their agony, men have made women, their one potential ally, their enemies. Men are also going through a major crisis of sexual identity. The last thing they need is any challenges to their masculinity. Trying to keep women physically small and feeble, uncertain about their own sexual identity, and preoccupied with their body image is just what the doctor ordered (literally). One way that women might reclaim their bodies from the tyranny of male whim and social propriety is to free themselves of the chains of dieting. Becoming bigger and stronger violates taboos, but these taboos are patrolled by men and the financial interests of the fashion industry, not by the health and well-being of women. How could we have traveled so far down the wrong road? This is not a health issue. It never was. Our physically-endowed women are labeled obese, sick, while being told to idolize shriveled creatures comprised of only skin, hair, bones and an attitude, who actually are medically the sick ones

Wow. The quoted opinion exhibits classical blame-shifting, where the self-described "victim" doesn't want to accept responsibility for their own actions and weaves a logical net in which it's somebody else's fault.

I had a rant, but realized that it was just troll-bait and deleted it.

Indeed, while many current campus codes do not absolutely require verbal consent, they strongly encourage it with warnings that "relying solely upon non-verbal communication" can lead to mistakes and misunderstandings. (The initial draft of the California bill contained such language as well.) With such rules, a college disciplinary panel evaluating a complaint is likely to err on the side of caution and treat only verbal agreement as sufficiently clear consent.

There are obviously many problems with vocal consent being mandatory, but what's the point of getting upset about something that isn't?

I have trouble taking this Reason article seriously for a few reasons. Right off the bat, it misquotes the actual bill, instead quoting an old version. The bill's current language has been softened up. Reason writes

"Affirmative consent" is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.

In other words, consent may be ambiguous. Whether there was consent is a determination to be made based on context and a standard of reasonableness -- what more would we want from any disciplinary system? This stuff about how "a college disciplinary panel is likely to...treat only verbal agreement as sufficiently clear consent" is just conjecture. It's a wild conclusion based on a version of the bill that doesn't exist anymore and fantasies about how the world might work.

I guess I have two points:

1) This article misrepresents what is;

2) I don't see the point of being paranoid about things for which we have no proof.

Edit: It's worth pointing out that the bill was last amended on June 18th. This Reason article was posted on June 22nd. I could understand the misquote if the article had been posted before the amendments, but it wasn't.